Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37401 - 37410 of 38464 for t's.
Search results 37401 - 37410 of 38464 for t's.
2010 WI APP 172
., 466 U.S. at 687. Thus, in order to succeed on the prejudice aspect of the Strickland analysis, “[t]he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56996 - 2010-12-13
., 466 U.S. at 687. Thus, in order to succeed on the prejudice aspect of the Strickland analysis, “[t]he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56996 - 2010-12-13
State v. Todd M. Jadowski
that it is not unjust to impose criminal liability without the necessity of proving moral culpability.[40] "[T]he
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16788 - 2005-03-31
that it is not unjust to impose criminal liability without the necessity of proving moral culpability.[40] "[T]he
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16788 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
had made a “‘demand’” that he be allowed to represent himself. It further found: [T]his is one
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=146852 - 2015-08-18
had made a “‘demand’” that he be allowed to represent himself. It further found: [T]his is one
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=146852 - 2015-08-18
CA Blank Order
not be helpful in [Johnson’s] appeal [and] [i]t is highly unlikely that the results of a similar evaluation
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108370 - 2014-02-20
not be helpful in [Johnson’s] appeal [and] [i]t is highly unlikely that the results of a similar evaluation
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108370 - 2014-02-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
))). No. 2023AP353 15 stop. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (“‘[T]he fact
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=851553 - 2024-09-27
))). No. 2023AP353 15 stop. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (“‘[T]he fact
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=851553 - 2024-09-27
Clinton J. Colby v. Columbia County
failed to prove compliance with the filing requirements of sec. 59.76 and 59.77, Stats. We held that "[t
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16890 - 2005-03-31
failed to prove compliance with the filing requirements of sec. 59.76 and 59.77, Stats. We held that "[t
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16890 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Antoine D. Edwards
”). The trial court considered the seriousness of the offense, noting that “[t]his was an extremely serious
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21736 - 2017-09-21
”). The trial court considered the seriousness of the offense, noting that “[t]his was an extremely serious
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21736 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
and the provisions of this Ordinance.” Id., § 18.02. The term “use,” in turn, is defined as “[t]he purpose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=146270 - 2015-08-17
and the provisions of this Ordinance.” Id., § 18.02. The term “use,” in turn, is defined as “[t]he purpose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=146270 - 2015-08-17
[PDF]
State v. Lucian Agnello
369, 369-70, 577 N.W.2d 335 (1998), reads: [T]he cause is remanded to the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3068 - 2017-09-19
369, 369-70, 577 N.W.2d 335 (1998), reads: [T]he cause is remanded to the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3068 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Jennifer K. Matejka
probable cause. The Supreme Court explained the automobile exception in California v. Carney: [T
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17470 - 2017-09-21
probable cause. The Supreme Court explained the automobile exception in California v. Carney: [T
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17470 - 2017-09-21